Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202411395)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411395

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)

9 July 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. outstanding repairs to her property.
    2. the conduct of a contractor’s operative.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 3 children. The resident advised one of her children has a lung condition. The landlord’s records show it was aware that one of the resident’s children had a health condition as it had received a letter from the child’s GP. The resident advised she moved to the property in an emergency as a victim of domestic abuse.
  2. Since the resident’s tenancy started on 7 July 2022, the resident had frequently chased the landlord to action some outstanding repairs. On 6 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding outstanding repairs and the conduct of an operative. The resident did not state in her complaint what outstanding repairs she was referring to. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It said to address the resident’s complaint it had investigated when the resident’s windows and doors would be replaced. The landlord said the resident’s windows would be fitted in the first week of March 2023. It apologised for the delay in the windows being replaced and said the delay might have been caused because the windows needed to be manufactured. The landlord said there was an appointment booked for 3 March 2023 for repairs to some windows and a door. It said a manager had spoken to the operative about his conduct. The landlord apologised for the distress caused and stated the level of service was not acceptable. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded £50 compensation.
  3. On 27 February 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She was dissatisfied that not all the outstanding repairs were referenced in the landlord’s response. The resident did not specify what repairs she was referring to. She said the landlord had not provided appointment dates for all her repairs. The resident said she also needed an exact date for the windows installation, not just which week. She explained she had been told for many months that jobs would be carried out, but nobody attended. The resident felt an apology for the operative’s conduct was not enough for what she had experienced. The resident was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and questioned why it was applied to her rent account when a payment plan was in place for her arrears.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 March 2023. The landlord said the windows had now been fitted. It advised a further appointment would be booked in March 2023 for the outstanding repairs and then an inspection of the property would take place. It said the conduct of the operative would be dealt with internally as stated in its stage 1 response and apologised for the upset caused. The landlord advised the resident that no matter how frustrated she felt she must not be abusive towards staff. It stated the amount of compensation awarded and the payment being made to the resident’s rent account was in line with its policy.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023. The resident felt the severity of the problems she had experienced had been dismissed by the landlord and not been dealt with appropriately. She requested the Ombudsman investigate the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to her property.

  1. The resident’s tenancy states the landlord’s repair obligations include maintaining “the structure and outside of the property”. This includes “drains, gutters and external pipes; the roof; outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, including painting and decorating the outside; inside walls, floors and ceilings, doors, door frames, door hinges and skirting boards; but not painting and decorating the inside; chimneys, chimney stacks and flues but not sweeping the chimney; paths, steps or other entrances and exits; plaster work; garages and storage areas attached to the property; and boundary walls and fences”. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. “A guide to repair responsibilities in your home” is issued to residents by the landlord and lists the landlord’s repair categories and response times. Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as “any repair that may cause significant risk to the safety of our tenants, or significant damage to the property” and are addressed within 24 hours. Routine repairs are explained as “If a repair is not an emergency, it will generally be a routine appointment” and it states “every effort will be made to complete the repair within 28 calendar days (or 20 working days) of you contacting us”. Non-routine repairs are defined as a repair that “will take longer than the routine period due to complexity, materials needed, or considerations needed for the safety of our operatives (for example, if they will be working at heights). In this case, we will give the contractor a 90-day period instead of the routine period”.
  3. On 6 February 2023 the resident submitted 3 complaint webforms. The resident stated “basic repairs” were not being completed after work orders were raised and said that this had been ongoing for 6 months. She requested a review of her repairs. In the landlord’s stage 1 response issued on 23 February 2023 it stated for the complaint investigation it had asked when the resident’s “windows and doors would be replaced”. The evidence showed the resident’s windows were assessed for replacements and repairs in September 2022 which was over 4 months prior to the resident’s complaint.
  4. There were several delays progressing the window replacements and repairs. A delay occurred in confirming what work needed to be done. At an initial appointment on 28 September 2022 a window was measured for a replacement but at a further appointment on 29 September 2022 another operative advised the window could be repaired. The resident queried this with the landlord. It said the second operative that attended thought “the original request for a new window was incorrect”. The landlord said the second operative was a joiner and had more knowledge and experience than the previous operative. As there were conflicting reports, on 13 October 2022 the landlord asked a repair officer to visit the resident’s property for a second opinion. The evidence did not show when this appointment took place.
  5. There was a delay in approving the work orders for the windows. Two work orders were raised for the windows on 8 November 2022 and 4 December 2022 which needed authorisation. However, despite internal departments chasing, these work orders remained unapproved on 6 February 2023. On this date a repairs manager requested more evidence of the required repair and said they would make a final decision based on this evidence by the end of the week. This was 61 working days after the first work order was raised. It was inappropriate and unreasonable of the landlord to take this long to decide it needed more information to be able to authorise the work. These delays were unfair on the resident and caused her frustration.
  6. The relevant department within the landlord not having taken ownership of the work that was needed on the windows may also have contributed to delays in these repairs progressing. The evidence showed on 13 October 2022 that the repairs department passed this work over to the voids team. However, the evidence showed this work returned to the repairs department at some point, the evidence was not clear when.
  7. While waiting for work on the windows to be progressed, on 23 November 2023 the resident asked for a temporary fix to a window. The landlord’s internal contractor would not “comply” with this request. The reason noted for this was because the tenant had been abusive to contractors and ejected them from the property previously. This was unreasonable and was not an appropriate reason to decline this request. The resident had reported that the problem with the windows was letting cold air in, and the landlord would have been aware that winter was about to start. The landlord was also aware the resident had 3 young children living with her and that one of the resident’s children had a disability. If there were concerns about the resident’s alleged behaviour this should have been discussed with her rather than declining a temporary fix to the window.
  8. On 20 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord of how the problems with the windows were affecting her son’s health. The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 November 2022 and stated her son’s health was being affected because the problems with the windows had not been resolved. The resident requested temporary boarding up of the lounge window on 12 December 2022. It was not clear from the evidence what the outcome of this request was. On 17 January 2023 the resident chased up the windows again because her son had attended A&E with breathing difficulties. The resident said the hospital suspected his symptoms might be due to the black mould in the property which the resident thought was not helped by the problems with the windows.
  9. The resident had repeatedly chased the landlord for an update on the windows and this was still outstanding on 6 February 2023. This was 90 working days after the first operative attended the property and said some windows needed to be replaced. Despite repeatedly chasing the landlord the resident had been unable to get clarity on the matter which was inappropriate and unreasonable. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations and kept her informed. The resident made a lot of contact over a long period of time to get the repairs progressed which was unfair and inappropriate. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated about what action it was going to take. The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord to get updates and to get the work progressed. If the resident had not contacted the landlord the work may have taken longer to resolve as it was evident from the landlord’s records that when the resident rang the work was chased up internally.
  10. In its stage 1 response issued on 23 February 2023 the landlord said, “apologies for the delay in getting the windows replaced but as they have to be manufactured there may have been a delay with that”. The language used by the landlord in this explanation for the delay was unclear and vague. If there had been a manufacturing delay, the landlord would have been able to have stated this with certainty. The landlord’s records show that 13 working days prior to the stage 1 response being issued, the replacement windows had not been authorised, so the delay was unlikely to be due to manufacturing. The evidence showed there had been significant delays in authorising this work. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to be fair and put things right, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. To be fair and to put things right the landlord should have accurately identified what caused the delay and should have acknowledged its responsibility. The landlord did not do this which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
  11. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response there was an appointment booked for 3 March 2023 to repair a window and a door. The evidence showed the landlord was aware of these repairs in September 2022 which was over 5 months prior to this appointment. This was considerably longer than any of the landlord’s timescales for repairs. It was unclear from the evidence why these two repairs were delayed. The evidence did not show that the resident was kept updated about these repairs or that the delay was explained, and her expectations managed. It was unclear if the appointment on 3 March 2023 went ahead, however the evidence showed that on 1 March 2023 the internal contractor advised that it would not reattend the resident’s property to complete work due to an alleged altercation between the resident and an operative. Therefore, it was likely these repairs remained outstanding for longer.
  12. Even though the landlord advised in its stage 1 response that it had investigated when the windows and doors would be replaced, it did not reference the replacement of the back door. The evidence showed the back door needed to be replaced and this was managed by the voids team. It was unclear from the evidence when the back door was replaced. The resident said the gap at the bottom of the back door let in the cold weather which affected her son’s chest condition, and he caught pneumonia. She also advised that a pest control company said that the gap at the bottom of the back door provided the main entry point for mice into the property. The evidence showed that a pest control company repeatedly attended the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have included information about the work required on the back door in its response.
  13. The evidence showed that there were several work orders for repairs to the resident’s property that were passed to the voids team. There were system notes which stated work was “raised in voids recall”, “outstanding recall works” and a work order to the internal contractor was “cancelled as it had to be done as a void recall”. This suggested that it was likely the property had outstanding work from the void period or that there was work required that should have been identified when the property was void. The evidence showed that belongings of the previous tenant had not been removed from the loft prior to when the resident moved in. This further suggested the landlord had not completed the appropriate processes prior to reletting the property to the resident.
  14. The resident moved into the property on 7 July 2022, yet the evidence showed the voids department was still dealing with outstanding work on 22 November 2022. This was 96 working days after the resident had moved in. This was inappropriate as this length of time was not in line with its policy as it was longer than any of the landlord’s timescales for repairs. This would have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. The resident expressed that this caused her distress as she stated in her complaint that she could not “live like this anymore”. When asked on the complaint form how it was affecting her, she said “traumatically”. Internal communication at the landlord stated that the property “was not in a decent state of repair” when the resident moved in, and a staff member stated they felt the resident had been “treated unfairly”. However, this was never acknowledged by the landlord which was unreasonable. Instead, internal communication appeared unsympathetic and there was a lack of ownership taken to put things right for the resident.
  15. In both its complaint responses the landlord did not provide details of the other repairs that were outstanding. In the stage 1 response the landlord chose to focus only on the windows and doors despite the resident stating in her complaint that she wanted a “review” of her repairs. The evidence showed other repairs which were not mentioned in the landlord’s response included repairs to kitchen cupboards and the kitchen flooring. In the stage 2 response the landlord referenced an appointment for “outstanding repairs” but did not provide any detail about what the outstanding repairs were. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have discussed with the resident what repairs she thought were outstanding, to have made sure all the repairs were correctly logged and to have managed the resident’s expectations.
  16. Both stage 1 and stage 2 responses lacked the detail to adequately remedy the problem. The landlord did not provide clear dates for when the outstanding work was due to occur. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the windows would be fitted in “the first week in March”. This was too vague for the resident as she had a job and other responsibilities. It would have been appropriate and reasonable to provide the resident with more detail than this. Despite acknowledging that one of the reasons the resident escalated her complaint was because she was dissatisfied about not being given a specific date for the windows, the same lack of clarity was repeated in the stage 2 response which said, “There is also a further appointment to be booked in March 2023 for outstanding repairs”. This further lack of detail demonstrated the landlord had not grasped the resident’s complaint and had not learned from the issues previously raised.
  17. In its stage 1 response the landlord awarded £50 compensation which comprised of £25 for service failure and £25 for time and trouble. Compensation was not awarded by the landlord at stage 2. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough. It did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, recognise that there were other outstanding repairs, nor the length of the delays.
  18. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of outstanding repairs to her property, the landlord should award the resident £600 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident and carry out a review regarding the standard the property was let in and the delays in authorising work orders for the windows.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a contractor’s operative.

  1. The landlord’s contractor’s site rules arrangements states “Any worker who acts in an insulting, aggressive, offensive or prejudicial manner toward client representatives, neighbours adjacent to the works, members of the public or other persons affected by the works will be immediately excluded from the site. If a complaint is received about behaviour of a contractor their staff or their sub-contractors, these will be investigated”.
  2. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it apologised to the resident for the upset the operative had caused her. Additionally, in the stage 1 response, it said a manager had spoken to the operative and had addressed the conduct towards residents, any unprofessional behaviour, and the code of conduct policy. The landlord advised that the manager of the operative had sent his apologies for any distress caused and said that what the resident experienced was not a level of service it accepted. The landlord said improvements would be made. In the stage 2 response the landlord reiterated what it had stated in its stage 1 response and said the matter would be dealt with internally and acknowledged in future training. This was in line with the landlord’s policy which said if complaints were received about staff or contractors that it would be investigated.
  3. As the landlord was not present at the time of the altercation between the operative and the resident, it was only able to consider the accounts shared by both parties and make a reasonable determination of what occurred based on that information. While the landlord was not expected to share details of any personnel or disciplinary measures, the landlord could have explained to the resident what the internal investigation would entail.
  4. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a contractor’s operative. This was because the landlord apologised for the upset caused and addressed the operative’s conduct in line with its policies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The evidence showed the resident first raised a complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2022. The complaint was 5 pages long and detailed the outstanding repairs and the problems the resident had encountered when she had tried to get these repairs completed. This Service asked the landlord for its response to this complaint, but the evidence showed the complaint was only forwarded to a manager and no response was provided. This was inappropriate. The resident’s email should have been logged as a complaint and handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. As the landlord did not do this the resident was delayed in being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, she was also delayed in being able to bring her complaint to this Service.
  3. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns. Handling this complaint appropriately through its internal complaint procedure may have prevented the further delays and problems that the resident continued to experience. It was also a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations on what work would be done and the timescales involved. It was evident from her complaint that the resident was frustrated and felt the landlord did not understand the problems she had encountered or the affect it was having on her and her children. The Code states “Effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood”. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have enabled the resident to have felt heard and understood.
  4. On 6 February 2023 the resident raised 3 complaints but only 1 complaint was logged and acknowledged. The resident raised this in her escalation email, but the landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response. When the resident raised 3 complaints on the same day about similar issues it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the 3 complaints and have advised the resident that it was looking at all 3 complaints under 1 complaint reference. It did not do this which added to the resident’s frustration as she felt 2 of her complaints had been ignored.
  5. The resident had requested a review of her repairs, but the landlord only focused on the windows and doors in the complaint. The landlord should have addressed all the repairs to ensure the resident received a comprehensive response. The Code states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord did not do this. The landlord’s responses lacked detail and had not acknowledged what caused the problems the resident had experienced. In its stage 2 response the landlord advised the windows had now been fitted but had not investigated the problems and delays the resident had experienced prior to this.
  6. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This was because the landlord did not log and respond to a complaint in line with its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the resident’s 3 complaints, even when she raised this and had not addressed all the repairs which is what the resident had requested. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £150 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct of a contractor’s operative, the landlord redressed the matter prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from a senior manager for the failings she has experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review with the teams involved in this case to identify where lessons can be learnt specifically regarding the standard the property was let in and the delays in authorising work orders for the windows. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to this Service advising:
    1. Why was the resident’s property let in the condition it was?
    2. What is being done to ensure properties are not let in this condition again?
    3. Why were there such significant delays in authorising the resident’s new windows?
    4. What is being done to ensure delays in authorising work do not occur again?

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out complaint handling refresher training with its staff to include the importance of logging all complaints and addressing all the complainant’s points in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.